Friday, July 29, 2016

The Economistargues for openness, Hillary Clinton, and the corrupt anti-nationalist status quo:

Countering the wall-builders will require stronger rhetoric, bolder policies and smarter tactics. First, the rhetoric. Defenders of the open world order need to make their case more forthrightly. They must remind voters why NATO matters for America, why the EU matters for Europe, how free trade and openness to foreigners enrich societies, and why fighting terrorism effectively demands co-operation. Too many friends of globalisation are retreating, mumbling about “responsible nationalism”. Only a handful of politicians—Justin Trudeau in Canada, Emmanuel Macron in France—are brave enough to stand up for openness. Those who believe in it must fight for it.

They must also acknowledge, however, where globalisation needs work. Trade creates many losers, and rapid immigration can disrupt communities. But the best way to address these problems is not to throw up barriers. It is to devise bold policies that preserve the benefits of openness while alleviating its side-effects. Let goods and investment flow freely, but strengthen the social safety-net to offer support and new opportunities for those whose jobs are destroyed. To manage immigration flows better, invest in public infrastructure, ensure that immigrants work and allow for rules that limit surges of people (just as global trade rules allow countries to limit surges in imports). But don’t equate managing globalisation with abandoning it.

As for tactics, the question for pro-open types, who are found on both sides of the traditional left-right party divide, is how to win. The best approach will differ by country. In the Netherlands and Sweden, centrist parties have banded together to keep out nationalists. A similar alliance defeated the National Front’s Jean-Marie Le Pen in the run-off for France’s presidency in 2002, and may be needed again to beat his daughter in 2017. Britain may yet need a new party of the centre.

In America, where most is at stake, the answer must come from within the existing party structure. Republicans who are serious about resisting the anti-globalists should hold their noses and support Mrs Clinton. And Mrs Clinton herself, now that she has won the nomination, must champion openness clearly, rather than equivocating. Her choice of Tim Kaine, a Spanish-speaking globalist, as her running-mate is a good sign. But the polls are worryingly close. The future of the liberal world order depends on whether she succeeds.

The Economist correctly senses that the time for "the liberal world order" is rapidly running out. Notice how, like much of the conservative media and the cuckservative Republicans, the maintenance of the status quo is its only real principle and completely trumps all of their various ideologies. Everyone profiting from the current setup, from literal Socialist to small government Republican, is willing to stand shoulder-to-shoulder against anyone who would first stand for the benefit of his nation and his people.

The Economist is speaking with the voice of the transnational elite, who have no loyalty to any nation, who could not care less about Americans, or French, or British, or Chinese, or anyone else, so long as they are allowed to continue to prey upon them. It is not, as some would have it, an exclusively Jewish elite, but rather, an alliance of rapacious elites from every nation, who share an honor among thieves and defend each other at the expense of the various peoples they have been raping for at least four generations.

Globalism is an evil even greater than Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Fascism, or Feminism, because it is a trans-ideological meta-evil that can take advantage of any ideology except Nationalism. That is why Nationalism is the most effective response to it and that is why those who love either freedom or their own people should support the Nationalists of every nation and of every ideological stripe.

83 Comments:

"Let goods and investment flow freely, but strengthen the social safety-net to offer support and new opportunities for those whose jobs are destroyed."

Don't increase jobs and manufacturing just increase government cheese. That isn't a "bolder policy." Just the same tired crap they've always offered. Bigger Government. Eloi and Morlocks. They have nothing left and they are terrified.

Acknowledge there are bad effects related to globalism. Propose more government spending and endless welfare for affected people and implicitly low IQ government drones as the solution. All in countries drowning in economic stagnation and government debt whilst new technologies make basic labor less demanded.

And they call themselves an economic magazine.

Double down by arguing for political games to disenfranchise the restless natives, in this case Whites.

Globalism, yet another attempt to consolidate regional/ national authorities under a single government. This abolishes regional authority and makes them into administrative centers for a centralized authority. This was the central issue in the BREXIT campaign.

I believe the opposition to Wilson's League of Nations, as well as current opposition to bring America under UN mandates, is based on a reasonable belief that national sovereignty will be abolished. Didn't Wilson advertise the League as promoting world peace? The UN seeks to use the legislatures of its member nations to consolidate under climate change mandates. Now the advertising messaging for globalism is "free trade". Is it me or is this a recognition by the "world government advocates" that previous messaging has failed and it is time to try another angle?

This is fantastic time for people to read the prophetic critiques of the so-called Anti-Federalists who should be termed "federal republicans" instead. Their opponents, the Federalists, should be termed "consolidationists" for that is more accurate.

stress management wrote:Although not a monolithic ethnic bloc, the rapacious elites are apparently united in their ant-semitism - pretty bigoted of them not to invite Israel to join the countryless club!Huh? Of course they have. Netanyahu is as much a part of the global elite as any Bush, and is funded by Sheldon Adelson just like many Republicans. Our left-leaning parties and NGOs are helped by European governments all the time.

Add to that the free-trade agreements with the EU, membership in the OECD and "help" in absorbing South Sudanese and Erithrean "refugees", and I don't see how Israel is not part of the globalist movement.

I remember them pushing hard for mass immigration in the 90's too. Even then, the idea that we'd be enriched by millions of fast-breeding, low IQ peasants who guzzle welfare spending like termites do a rotten house was obviously retarded.

The same article just got posted by one of my liberal friends on FB. This is a bit of progress: they at least quoted Heidt.

Some people seem organically unable to grasp the idea that there exist people who would prefer to live amongst their own. The idea that you may want to value your language, your people, your culture is seen not just as alien and incomprehensible, but as genuinely evil.

They strive to make it impossible to even say "I prefer to talk with people I consider part of my community" without being dubbed racist. The idea that one have right to decide who is part of his community seems so dangerous it is discarded without any discussion.

Another thing: globalists use kind of circular arguments. They say there are no proofs of immigrants being more welfare dependent or crime prone.

However, it's really hard to have any discussion about immigration effects because many states have no or even makes it illegal to have statistics based on ethnic composition. For example, it's close to impossible to get really reliable (i.e. not estimates) stats on crime, welfare dependency for "Germans" and "French" descending from Turkish, Algerian or Moroccan immigrants. In official stats on crime "German suspects" include second- or third- generation Turks. So, there is no proof that second-generation Moroccans in France are more crime-prone than native French because it's illegal to gather needed statistics.

Another trick is confusing immigrants from different regions, e.g. saying that "it's not true that immigrants create more costs, look at this statistics! Hence we have to import immigrants from Middle East!" and then, when you look at the stats, you see that "immigrants" groups together Europeans, Eastern Asians, Arabs, Africans and so on - and in rare occassions when you are able to discern the differences between those groups, you clearly see _vast_ differences in behaviour between those groups.

Hence, "open borders create benefits!" because "small immigration from Germany to Sweden created absolutely no problems and even contributed to economy, so the same will be in case of massive immigration from Africa to Sweden!".

Ignoring the rhetoric my impression of that is that Trump is arguing for global standards of behaviour with a place at the table for nationalism which when viewed in our current situation is starkly opposed to the current globalist behaviour, looting, with only the them at the table.

It should also be noted that the globalists have only been forced out into the public light in the last few years. They existed before but the average person thought along the traditional political alignments. The growth of the Alt-Right highlights how these alignments are being reshaped.

A man might get richer by pimping out his wife and selling the kids to a circus, but strangely enough few people want that.

But of course immigration doesn't - contra The Economist - make us richer. It makes the vast majority - the suckers who pay taxes and find their wages depressed - poorer while lining the pockets of already rich guys like Mark Zuckerberg.

The Jewish diaspora consistently and stridently agitates for host societies to dissolve themselves, but has no comparable zeal for dissolving its own relatively healthy, and unashamedly nationalist, ethnostate in the globalist crucible.

I watched her entire speech and she accomplished one very important goal. If you wanted a reason to vote for her you now have it, as she said she is the candidate who will unify everyone and make everything great. This is in contrast to Trump who they will paint as a divider and dark.

It's a good political tacti, will work to convince a few voters, but more importantly gives a lot of voters an excuse to vote for her.

"To manage immigration flows better, invest in public infrastructure, ensure that immigrants work and allow for rules that limit surges of people"

"Manage immigration flows"; "limit surges of people."

Right. Immigration is just an irresistible force of nature that nations can only react to and accommodate as best they can. Funny how Japan, Korea and Taiwan don't have to "manage inflows" or "surges".

"Public infrastructure". Yeah, that's the problem. The reason for the European migrant crisis is lack of good roads and bridges.

"Ensure immigrants work". After 40 years of this, it is clear that they expect, and are given, welfare. How does one "ensure" that illiterate third-worlders with no skills and often no ability to communicate in a common language work.

But of course immigration doesn't - contra The Economist - make us richer.

This is the tricky part. One cannot actually go back in time and look what would happen without an immigration.

Economists instead create models, look at regions they think are similar and so on, and then they conclude that overall immigration increase wages (!), increase global GDP (!!) and lower the unemployment (!!!).

It's hard to argue against those models even when they are outright contradicting our experiences.

That's why I usually concentrate on long-term impact on institutions, long-term costs imposed on social capital and, most of all, the simple fact that, as you have written, economic growth is not everything and people simply have right to choose whether they want "diverse and vibrant" neighbourhood.

The Jewish diaspora consistently and stridently agitates for host societies to dissolve themselves, but has no comparable zeal for dissolving its own relatively healthy, and unashamedly nationalist, ethnostate in the globalist crucible.Not at all. The government of Israel should accept some Saudi proposal or some European proposal, both of which means the formation of a Palestinian state that will be Judenrein, alongside a Jewish state that will accept "a limited number" (to be determined later) of Palestinian refugees.

Israeli politicians are more upfront about resisting this than any US politicians were before Trump, but this is what's behind all the failed middle east peace process: Israeli politicians get European and American money and support for participating in some "peace process". That way the European or American politician can be seen as promoting peace in the middle east. But they always have to back away from any real agreement, because it will lead to the end of a Jewish state, but worse: will get them unelected much sooner. Their interests are perfectly aligned with those of the Arafats and Abbases of the world.

This is why we always have a never-ending peace process but never any peace.

It's amazing how blatant they are about the necessary alliance between liberals and "open conservatives". They are truly showing us the man behind the curtain: there never was any true antagonism between progressives and "conservatives" (cuckservatives). It was all for show, a Potemkin Noh play to make the rubes think there were opposing sides.

All pretense is now dropped. They see it as a given that the neocons are part of liberal hegemony. And they are right.

This is all detailed in 'Cuckservative'. The Economist has now come out as full cuck.

Had lunch with my coworkers yesterday. All female, and all of them are voting H. Rotten Clinton, yet none have a grasp of the nationalist vs globalist argument. It was all "vote woman" for president, and what a jerk Trump is. They aren't issues voters.

“We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order — a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful — and we will be (smirk) we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders.” ~ G W H Bush

You can bet the global elite will not go out without fight.

Or, as Vladimir Putin said: "Your people, in turn, do not feel a sense of the impending danger - that is what worries be."

USNATO is the spear that brings the Gap into the globalist NWO Core. (And keep your eye on Turkey).

@20 "Trump is arguing for global standards of behaviour with a place at the table for nationalism"

Basically, Trump is just asking for what most other nations are already doing. Does The Economist not consider Korea, Japan, Poland, Russia, China and Indonesia part of globalist free trade? The fact is, they are _only_ asking for open immigration in Western countries. Why is it the countries that are _already_ slated to be ethnically replaced that need to "do more"? If the U.S., France and Britain haven't taken in enough immigrants, then where the hell does that put Korea, Japan, Poland and China? The hypocrisy of The Economists and "globalists" is stunning. Globalism for thee, ethno-nationalism for me.

every assertion the economist makes can be ripped from tits to high tide in a minute. i'm not going to waste the time. to think that magazine used to be considered sophisticated and intellectual. it's drivel.

Globalism is an evil even greater than Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Fascism, or Feminism, because it is a trans-ideological meta-evil that can take advantage of any ideology except Nationalism.

Yes. They are equally happy to use Feminist misandry or Islamist misogyny. It occurs to me that the Hegelian synthesis would be Satanist misanthropy.

That is why Nationalism is the most effective response to it and that is why those who love either freedom or their own people should support the Nationalists of every nation and of every ideological stripe.

Yes. I don't care that Golden Dawn is leftist; there will be time to argue with Greeks about national economics when they have a secure, intact nation.

Catholics have a principle called "subsidiarity" in which each decision is best made at the lowest level possible, so that cities are not dictating family-level decisions to families, and countries are not dictating province-level decisions to provinces.

This principle is most concerned with fighting off government intrusion into family matters, but it is articulated in a way that is antithetical to administrative districts in general, since things like communism and Marriage 2.0 treat the nuclear family as one.

(The current Pope has apparently never heard of subsidiarity, seeming to believe that countries shouldn't even make country-level decisions, but it exists.)

So if "no enemies to the right" doesn't always work, what unites all nationalists? We all support different teams, but we all want to have a team in the league. Some combination of subsidiarity and solidarity. Allegiance to the team, but also to the game.

Odd how the article comes across less like a personal voice than an aggregate position arrived at by committee.

It was heartening to see the comments section (when switched to highest recommended by readers) all the top comments were savaging the article for naivety. They continued on past first two pages, which is when I stopped reading.

This one (referring to the articles cartoon) made me chuckle:

"Seems like the artist forgot to draw a suicide bomb detonation with a guy screaming Allahu Akbar on the side with the rainbow."

Some people seem organically unable to grasp the idea that there exist people who would prefer to live amongst their own. The idea that you may want to value your language, your people, your culture is seen not just as alien and incomprehensible, but as genuinely evil.

I don't even care about the members of my direct community.

My biggest pet peeve with the idea that you move to where the jobs are is that you are leaving family. Technology might make it "easier" to travel and stay in touch, but there is no replacement for tangible, daily interaction with extended family. And travel is expensive.

As always, ask who gains? The only international government, the UN, is two layered with bureaucracy to be more than internally self serving. That leaves no effective international government, and into that vacuum go the intellectuals of the sort that the Economist supports. What they imagine with globalism is their own empowerment. If successful what they will end up with is a corrupt aristocracy that does not give a rip about them. Not Marx's utopia but Stalin's purges.

Reading a Radix article on James Burnham and 29 of his quotes a word popped out at me that might be useful as rhetoric against the little supporters of Globalism and its handmaiden the Hillary campaign.

Globalism looks to be a thin disguise for the American Empire, which I think is propped up by the Fed. Kick that support out from it and the American Empire is just another clapped out husk with a few pockets of the American nation left to form the nucleus of smaller more sane countries.

"As always, ask who gains? The only international government, the UN, is two layered with bureaucracy to be more than internally self serving."

This is a misconception. The UN is nothing more than a proxy of globalist run Washington. Notice that every time a UN "diplomat" or managerial elite develops a sense of decency in the UN, an American alphabet soup agency frames them up on 89,000 charges of illegal immigrant maid rape, or some other nonsense that is then quietly discounted. Or Washington threatens to cut off the spigot (Washington DC pays all of the UN's bills) and the "international governance" fall into line so quickly as to make one's head spin.

Only the American people can now change the world's current course (scary thought) because they are the only ones who can contain Washington DC without blowing it off the map and starting a planet-as-we-know-it ending nuclear war.

And Globalism is a Jewish Ideology. It is the requirement of Jewish Messianism. It is the goal of Communism, Marxism, Fabian Socialism, Democratic Socialism, Freemasonry and the Bahai Faith. They will destroy or kill all people who stand in their way.

@25 wroteIt's hard to argue against those (economic) models even when they are outright contradicting our experiences.

I want to politely disagree here and say that "Huh, that not what we're seeing here on the ground", is a perfectly good response. Same goes for the climate change models where ships going to see how much the ice has melted are getting trapped in the ice that shouldn't be there according to their models.

From the article, ensure that immigrants work . Well, we've already have 92 million people not working a in this country. How the hell are we supposed to ensure that new immigrants work? Instead of a country called Rationala, we need a planet called Fantasia where all these globalist assholes can go.

With all the truth that's been available, anyone still buying the false narrative of globalism should be mocked or ignored. At this point, the only thing to do next is for the west to go full retard (elect Hillary), or fight (Trump).

My observation at least the party orientated practical politics of Globaloney has fallen into the hands of the gals of the D party, and IMO gals excel at petty office politics but cannot grasp large picture long term thinking, think of the office secretaries forming up their bitchbund. Prone to making strategic errors, but it seems DJT god emperor knows women unlike the low ranking shlubs the GOP has foisted upon us since time began

Justin Trudeau's support of "openness" only goes so far as importing thousands of "refugees" and keeping Canada's borders wide open to third world immigration (proportionally, we are probably letting a far higher percentage of immigrants into Canada than the Americans let into America).

His support for free trade is pretty tepid (whatever you think of free trade, Canada generates most of its wealth through external trade), and of course Canada has some of the worst internal trade barriers between provinces of any developed nation, imposing an estimated $19 billion/year in extra costs for internal trade between Canadians. With Canadian Liberals you get the worst of both worlds

Monopolies may be bad in business, but they are worse in government. The globalists crave a monopoly of power around the world to finally remake humanity according to their godless, "rational" paradigm, completing the work of Robespierre, Lenin, Pol Pot, and similar lunatics.

Fortunately, there is no such thing as a global society to support a global government. Societies are formed by a sense of uniqueness and differentiation from the rest of the world; without competition between societies, they would lose their identities and fall apart.

Society (i.e., the nation) is the host. Government and its enablers are merely the parasites, and they're about to get a reminder of who's in charge.

Diego Del Sol wrote:@25 wroteIt's hard to argue against those (economic) models even when they are outright contradicting our experiences.

I want to politely disagree here and say that "Huh, that not what we're seeing here on the ground", is a perfectly good response.

I disagree, but the main point is that this response is not needed. It does not matter whether immigrants increase GDP or not, one should be able to be against immigration even if all economic models are true. Arguing against immigration using arguments like "it decreases employment and GDP!" makes it look like those are the only valid points and, since you can't travel in time, is very hard to prove. This makes for good propaganda tools because a lot of people are conformist and want to look "non-racist" and therefore want to have arguments "see, I am not racist or nationalist, I am just against rising unemployment". Ultimately, however, a nation have right to regulate the immigration as it wish, whether or not it affects economy.

Diego Del Sol wrote:@25 wroteSame goes for the climate change models where ships going to see how much the ice has melted are getting trapped in the ice that shouldn't be there according to their models.

I politely disagree. This is what I read some time ago:A U.N. panel on climate change has predicted that polar regions could be virtually free of ice by the summer of 2070 because of rising temperatures and sea ice decline ... Until now, the passage has been expected to remain closed even during reduced ice cover by multiyear ice pack — sea ice that remains through one or more summers .. "It won't be ice-free all year around and it won't be a stable route all year,"

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=3609686&page=1

Other stories tell me that quite a lot of ships completed the trip via nortwestern passage, which was, according to those stories, impossible just decades ago.

CM wrote:My biggest pet peeve with the idea that you move to where the jobs are is that you are leaving family. Technology might make it "easier" to travel and stay in touch, but there is no replacement for tangible, daily interaction with extended family. And travel is expensive.

I'm currently grappling with this issue myself. What makes it somewhat easier for me is that my wife is an only child, and it's only her father (though he's heavily provincial in his mindset, so much so that it's uncomfortable for him to even leave his own zip code). The rest of my family is concentrated in an area that's already a bit of a hike away from where we are currently, but it seems as if it's too much of a hassle to come see us more often than we go to see them.

I'm actively looking at places where we could benefit from lower taxes, cost of living, etc. My motivation is more making sure that my family is properly taken care of vice keeping things somewhat familiar, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means my children can potentially have a better life ahead of them. I don't have any personal expectations of my children when they do come of age and want to seek their fortunes in the world. To try to tether them close to home is to do them a major disservice, but keeping it as an option will always be on the table, and it's ultimately their decision.

Vox, there is not a multiethnical globalist elite. There are white race traitors, jews, and elites from exporting countries, also eager to obtain white knowledge from their migrants. Chinese globalists are not interested in flood China with blacks or outsource their jobs to Indonesia.

Samuel Nock wrote:"The idea that you may want to value your language, your people, your culture is seen not just as alien and incomprehensible, but as genuinely evil."

Only if you're white. If any one else does it, its wonderful and admirable.Eh... not really. Get your average white, high-status Tranzi drunk enough and he'll eventually admit that he doesn't like niggers any more than we do. Why do you think he chooses to live so far away from them?

That's just the goy Tranzis; Jewish ones don't even need the alcohol if they think they're in safe company. Hell, even the handful of black Brahmins get visibly uncomfortable around Dalit blacks.

Anyone else familiar with Keith Preston's concept of pan-secessionism, where Vermonters and Alabamans cheer for the victories of Catalonian separatists? Could probably work within the context of pan-nationalism, especially if you imagine it as a case of your entire country seceding from the so-called global community.

@7 There is a difference between recognizing that we have a global economy and being a globalist. We have had a global economy for hundreds of years, in the sense that significant economic activity in many nations is functionally dependent upon economic activity occurring in other nations. When we had nationalist capitalism, our government acted in part to secure trade advantages for Americans. Globalists, or internationalist crony capitalists, want national governments to cease acting on behalf of their citizens.

This explains in part why globalists are importing hordes of 3rd-worlders. We, and many of the other Western nations, have (or had) our rule of law governed by national constitution. The globalists HATE constitutionalism. They want rule of law within nations to be governed by appointed (by them) transnational corporate arbitration panels (TPP). They want to reduce national governments to simply managing, rather than serving or advocating, the people who live within their borders. NONE of the immigrants we in the West are getting have any sort of constitutional tradition, or expectation of freedom or liberty for that matter. Most vote for globalist factions in return for gibsmedat, oblivious to the larger picture. The globalists like muslims best of all because they will NEVER assimilate to any appreciable degree. Globalist arrogance blinds them to the reality that the muslims have their own internationalist agenda. If open immigration isn't stopped, they will dismantle the West from within using our own machinery of governance.

Mr. Trump can be a loyal American opposing globalism while at the same time recognizing that our economy is linked with the rest of the world. It's about who designs the rules governing international trade, and hence who profits most from it: internationalist Wall Street scum or national peoples.

35. SciVo July 29, 2016 8:00 AMCatholics have a principle called "subsidiarity" in which each decision is best made at the lowest level possible, so that cities are not dictating family-level decisions to families, and countries are not dictating province-level decisions to provinces.

that's hilariously ironic when you compare the absolute hegemony asserted by the Pope vs the 'national Church' organization of the Orthodox.

25. szopen July 29, 2016 7:13 AMIt's hard to argue against those models even when they are outright contradicting our experiences.

no, it's simple enough to point out the contradictions inherent in the models AND THE WAY THEY ARE APPLIED.

as i've noted before, the GAO and Congress apply 'Baseline Budgeting' assuming a year over year ~7% growth in all existing .Gov expenditures. ( meaning that NEW .Gov expenditures [ such as Obamacare ] necessarily drive up .Gov outlays even over and above the nominal 7% )

while, simultaneously, the Federal Reserve seeks to hold total growth in GDP to < 3%.

63. Snidely Whiplash July 29, 2016 10:55 AMThis is literally the very first time I've seen a Globalist admit that Globalism creates losers as well as winners. They always talk about averages and general society, not individuals.

yeah, get back to me when they start admitting that these policies are designed to disadvantage the bourgeoisie.

. It is not, as some would have it, an exclusively Jewish elite, but rather, an alliance of rapacious elites

Not All Elites Are Like That. Only the 99%

It is to devise bold policies that preserve the benefits of openness while alleviating its side-effects.

Put desert didndus in someone else's back yard.

but strengthen the social safety-net to offer support and new opportunities for those whose jobs are destroyed.

Make a stronger safety net so niggers from Africa can leach up more benefits. What caused the woman behind Refussegee Resettlement Watch to start was Lancaster PA had so many 3rdworlders dumped on them that the population became 4% refusegee added directly to welfare/section 8 & citizens had trouble accessing services. Even those who provided charity said "stop sending moslem niggers"

@55 Ok. I'm not sure we were on the same wavelength.This about climate change for anyone interested.http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/20/global-warming-expedition-stopped-in-its-tracks-by-arctic-sea-ice/

@63 I was also surprised by the tone and open NWO language, but since I don't read (Thurston Howell accent) The Economist (/THA) thats probably on me. But it also seems to me they are saying that any "losers" will only be in that spot temporarily because of all the spiffy new government policies and programs, such as turning lead into gold, that they'll come up with. So, no worries, mate.

If only ...http://www.theonion.com/graphic/dnc-honors-historic-nominee-dropping-broken-glass--53379

When Bruce Jenner first identified as a woman driver there was broken glass everywhere also ;)

Orville Had lunch with my coworkers yesterday. All female, and all of them are voting H. Rotten Clinton, yet none have a grasp of the nationalist vs globalist argument

If you think you can get away with it ask if they really want millions more moslems imported when white guys are no longer willing to help a white women being raped on a side walk in broad daylight by a Trayvon in OH. http://www.truecrimereport.com/2010/01/anferney_fontenet_15_rapes_wom.php "Look I wouldn't want to be a George Zimmerman"

I don't care that Golden Dawn is leftist;

I would feel better knowing my taxes went to help a poor white family, then Latrina's 21 crackbabies gobbling up benefits before poor whites get a turn.

For an excellent article comparing what the Globalist looters did to Russia in the 90s to what they've been doing to the US since the 70s, http://takimag.com/article/putin_1_internation_vampires_0_costin_alamariu#axzz4Fl7mEPdO

Some people seem organically unable to grasp the idea that there exist people who would prefer to live amongst their own. The idea that you may want to value your language, your people, your culture is seen not just as alien and incomprehensible, but as genuinely evil.

Yes, but strangely, they also seem to live amongst their own and only associate with their own...

Globalism is an evil even greater than Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Fascism, or Feminism, because it is a trans-ideological meta-evil that can take advantage of any ideology except Nationalism.

Communism in the form of Marxism-Leninism was globalist from the start. Trotsky infamously wanted to "liberate" Europe by spreading Communism on the bayonets of the Red Army. Stalin's retrenchment of "Socialism in one country" was widely derided by Old Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries alike, yet probably that in part saved the evil Soviet system from collapse in the 1930's.

The really ugly regimes, from the Directory of revolutionary France onward have all been globalist one way or another. The desire, the need, the lust, to exercise control over all neighbors, then all others, is inherent in these regimes.

Modern globalists have a velvet glove that they show to the world. The Economist editorial is an example. We will be seeing less of that as the peasants in the EUSSR and the USSA continue to revolt.

For now, though, the globalists will continue to import their footsoldiers, their colonists, to create the one-party state that globalization requires.

Jean-Claude Juncker has vowed that no matter how bad terrorism or the migrant crisis gets, the European Union (EU) will never give up on open borders. The European Commission president said terrorism could be countered with better intelligence-sharing between member states. On France 2’s Four Truths programme this morning, Mr. Juncker said “a lot of initiatives” will be required to strengthen security in the EU. After a bloody month for Europe in which the continent has seen multiple Islamic terror attacks — four in the last week in Germany alone — the EU president insisted better communication between member states would solve the problem...

Mr. Juncker said he considers it illegitimate for him to “interfere in the Democratic [party] Republican [party] debate”, but the EU chief admitted he would prefer Hillary Clinton in the White House to Donald Trump. The President of the European Commission is not just committed to open borders within Europe. Under his presidency, the European Commission lists migration as one of its priorities. As well as offering residency to the world’s “refugees”, the Commission seeks to make it much easier and more desirable for Africans and their families to move to EU countries….

The globalists are toast. If the polls are just even on election day, Trump wins. If he's up by five points, it's a landslide. If he's up ten, it's a blowout.

In the DNC speech thread, ScVo linked 538's "Swing the Election" interactive map which lets you adjust the R/D and turnout percentages for Whites (college and non-college), Blacks, Hispanics and Asian/other, starting with the 2012 numbers andadjusting for changing state demographics to see which way each state will go and what the resulting electoral college votes will be.

Trump wins even if Whites swing just 3% toward Trump compared to how they voted for Obama and increase turnout even a little, while Blacks are just 3% lower for Hillary compared to Obama and have 3% lower turnout (still 90% Hillary and higher turnout than any other group besides college-educated Whites), even if Hispanics and Asians swing both 3% toward the Democrats and increase turnout by 3%.

A complete electoral college blowout 521R to 17D is not out of the question given these assumptions:(in parentheses are % differences compared to 2012)2016B %R/D Turnout %CEW.....66R(+10) 74(-3) NCW.....75R(+13) 67(+10)BLK..... 87D(-6).. 55(-11)HIS......63D(-8)... 46(-2)OTH......60D(-7)... 49(-0)Leaving only DC, Maryland, and Hawaii for Hillary.

The crucial vote is non-college educated Whites, if Trump wins them at 66% or better and they show up at all more than they did in 2012, Trump wins even with the other groups going against him in increased fractions compared to Romney.

I don't know how the Bernouts learned about Globalism.Most of the lefties I've talked with are firmly ensconced in the Left/Right battle, and even if they get a moment of understanding about Globalism, they fall right back into their old ways.

It helps with them when discussing that GWB, and his Pop were also heavily involved in it. They still can't take much criticism of their demi-gods without at least a sprinkling of "Bush did it too".

@77 I don't even mention globalism as a term to them. I just make everything the 'Bush-Clinton Machine'. Repeat it, watch their eyes. Repeat it often. Tie The Clintons to the Bushes every chance you get with Bernouts. I've made some headway.

Golden Dawn, leftist? Do you care to expand upon it? Because they are leaning extremely far-right as much as they can

They are leftists as far as the greek people are concerned. Think of it as treating poor greeks who have been victims of jewish looter differently than 3rd world rapists. When they threw illegal aliens out of hospitals so that GREEKS could get care they wanted the collectivism that the UN wants of their taxes for the illegals to be used the same way for citizens.